## NO. 12

- 0 9

- 00 395

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WENDEL C. PRINGLE

, ' APPEAL FROM THE 7 TH APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Wendel C. Pringle appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss the appeal.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger and pleaded “not guilty.” The indictment also a lleged that Appellant had previously been convicted of two felony offenses. A jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement allegations concerning his two pr ior felony convictions. At the conclusion of the trial on punishment, the trial court found the two enhancement allegations to be “true,” and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years. This appeal followed.A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFO RNIA

Appellant = s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State . Appellant = s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous
, and High v. State
, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant = s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further sets forth that Appell ant = s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant = s counsel has m oved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant = s counsel = s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed

. As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35 . Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petiti on for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of App ellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at

1 Counsel for Appellant has certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.408 n.22.

Opinion delivered January 5 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)